[2.21] is working on a new LBA

[Reek]

Originally Posted by CiB

Story is only part of the issue- it's perception. You can say "oh the story is simple" or "it doesn't really matter" or "we've put an intro cutscene in that tells you everything you need to know", but people who aren't already fans will still think of the game as "the threequel to the duology I didn't play".

But, going with your suggestion of not referring to the previous games at all, would you really want that? If 2.21 started putting out previews of "Arthurs Little Big Adventure" and it's obviously a sequel to the previous games but they don't mention that, wouldn't you think "this is weird." and wonder why people didn't want to know about the previous games? Is it because they're not making a game they think fans of the original would like? (That is, wouldn't it look like we, as LBA fans, are not getting the LBA 3 we want)

The marketting for an LBA3 (regardless of what it's called) will always have to walk an extremely fine line between "this is a sequel to the originals and we're respecting that legacy" (otherwise folks like you and I will be wary of it) and "it's a great starting point for people who have never played the games before" (otherwise it's not getting new players). Now I'm not saying that's impossible- there are cases where this has worked in the past. But it is really, really hard. Marketting a game successfully under those conditions (especially when the originals are fairly obscure games) is the marketting equivalent of playing Dark Souls on a dance mat while suspended upside down from a hang glider. It's likely to go very, very wrong unless the people doing it are real experts.

My guy, most people played lba2 before playing lba1. It does not matter. They could make lba3 and pitch it as a reboot, who's going to check, the continuity police?

Just start the game with a recap, the same way lba2 did, and that's it.

[SpaceGuitarist]

Originally Posted by Reek

As sgk said, you just don't call it "lba 3". How many people even know that nier: automata is technically a sequel? Or that the game it's a sequel to is itself a sequel and a spinoff of something else? Who gives a shit?

Enough with this excuse already. I've never heard, not once in the history of gaming, of making a remake just to give legitimacy to a sequel. It's never been done, it's nonsense. People who want to make sequels just make sequels.

^ Yeah, this.

Originally Posted by Reek

who's going to check, the continuity police?

[Quetch]

Did I mention my first ever introduction to LBA was LBA 2, which I enjoyed more than anything, then when I played LBA 1 I thought it's really nasty? Still to this day I don't really feel like replaying LBA 1 at all, while I keep installing LBA 2 on every "new" old PC I'm getting my hands one And they're just 3 years apart (1994 vs. 1997).

I find it hard to imagine that a game released in 2025 won't be played by today's generation just because they've missed 2 horribly looking (by their standards) MS-DOS games from 30 years ago which featured a 640x480 resolution with DirectX 3.0 support. And even if they'll wish to check what those are about, they can just search a bit of footage on YouTube, see some cutscenes, see some gameplay, get the idea and move on.

[SpaceGuitarist]

Right?
People will first check if it looks good or not, if it does, then if the game looks interesting (gameplay/story wise), see if there are favourable positive reviews and that is it. Noone gives a crap about whether it's a sequel/prequel/spiritual successor or whatnot.

[Polaris]

The collective blood pressure in this thread is over 9000
I mean I get that they are toying around with something that defined our childhood, but honestly, I'm happy to see LBA-related stuff, even if what I get to witness is shaping up to be an epic failure.